Lenin played the paramount role in posing the national question, in its theoretical grounding, in deep and comprehensive elaboration of the problems pertaining to it, and in establishing a consistently revolutionary line which, taking account of all the diversity of real relationships, linked the resolution of this question to the fundamental tasks of proletarian revolution in an inseparable connection.

The documents printed below, having direct relation to Lenin's lectures on the national question, belong to two periods close in time but not identical in content and in the tasks confronting revolutionary social democracy—namely, the pre-war period of 1913–14 and the year 1916, the beginning of "the epoch of imperialist wars and proletarian revolutions."

Both of these periods are characterized by a special situation by virtue of which the national question attracted the particularly close attention of our Party.

The Revolution of 1905–07 marked the beginning of the epoch of bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe and Asia. It awakened and intensified among the nationalities oppressed for centuries by tsarism the striving for independence. The defeat of the first Russian revolution, which entailed a rampage of nationalist reaction and a "revival of bourgeois nationalism," merely postponed the bourgeois-democratic transformation of Russia. To carry out this transformation became the task of the following revolution, the growth of which was already plainly evident in the pre-war period.

In these conditions, the national question, whose resolution in the spirit of consistent democratism was one of the basic democratic demands of the proletariat, occupied one of the central places at the Poronin conference of the Central Committee with Party workers in the autumn of 1913.

In these conditions, the point of the S.D. program adopted at the second Party congress—concerning the right of nations to self-determination—was "absolutely necessary." Lenin gave a brilliant grounding of this slogan and a consistently revolutionary interpretation of it as a slogan expressing the right of nations to separation and the formation of an independent state—above all in his first document on the national question for this period (i.e., the period of 1913), in his "Theses on the National Question" (Works, vol. XVI, p. 507), which were written, evidently, in connection with his public speeches in the summer of 1913.

But, as ten years earlier, in that first period of particularly close attention by our Party to the national question—namely the period when the program of Russian social democracy was being worked out—and in the years preceding the war, oscillations among various "national" (i.e., non-Great Russian) S.D.s manifested themselves anew with full force. These found expression, on the one hand, in the separatism of the Bund, in its adoption, as well as by Caucasian liquidators, of the slogan of "cultural-national autonomy," and on the other hand, in the attempt by Polish S.D.s to revise the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination.

In the "Theses," Lenin exposed the reactionary nature and harmfulness for the cause of uniting the proletariat of all nations of the slogan of cultural-national autonomy, which contradicted "the internationalism of the proletariat's class struggle," and subjected the Bund's separatism to merciless criticism.

To what an acute point the question of cultural-national autonomy reached in this period is shown by the record of discussions at Lenin's lectures in Zurich, Geneva, and Bern.

The error of the Polish S.D.s, who were threatened by the danger of "sliding into opportunism and nationalism from quite another direction," Lenin saw not in that they were "against Poland's separation," for which stood the "P.P.S.—not a proletarian, not a socialist party," but in that "they tried, like Rosa Luxemburg, to deny the necessity of recognizing the right to self-determination in the program of Russian S.D.s." This error of theirs stemmed from the fact that they neglected to take into account "the concrete peculiarities distinguishing one country from another within one and the same historical epoch," substituted "the question of the political self-determination of nations in bourgeois society, of their state independence, with the question of their economic independence and self-reliance," etc.

The exacerbation of the discussion with Polish S.D.s was provoked in the pre-war period by the appearance in *Przeglad* of an article "The National Question and Autonomy," in which Rosa Luxemburg most fully and thoroughly formulated her objections to the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination. In "Materials for the Lecture: 'Conditions of Peace in Connection with the National Question,'" notes and an excerpt from this article are provided, which Lenin made while reading it, probably in 1913, since these notes were used by him in his articles in *Prosveshchenie* (Enlightenment), relating to 1913–14.

The record of discussions at the lecture in Krakow in March 1914, and their transcription for the present edition by Polish comrades who were present at this lecture and themselves participated in the discussions, will give an idea of the arguments which Polish S.D.s generally advanced in defense of their point of view.

The outline-summary of the lecture "Conditions of Peace in Connection with the National Question" belongs to the period of the imperialist war, which brought the national question out of the framework of Eastern affairs and, first and foremost, Russian affairs, to an international scale. The summary outlines the entire circle of questions which the imperialist war brought onto the agenda and to which our Party with Lenin at its head gave answers.

The question of the right of nations to self-determination, which arose anew in this period and for which it was "necessary to be concrete," required "a clear distinction of oppressed, dependent, unequal nations from oppressing, exploiting, fully privileged nations." The attitude of social chauvinists toward this question, who substituted nationalism for socialism and denied the "supposedly utopian, illusory, petty-bourgeois, etc. right to self-determination"; the hypocritical policy of Kautskyites, who recognized this right in words but considered the right to political separation "an excessive demand" and did not uphold the necessity of a revolutionary tactic by socialists precisely of the oppressing nations." The tasks of revolutionary social democracy, which consisted first and foremost in exposing social chauvinists of all varieties and shades, who strove through phrases about "defense of the fatherland," "democratic peace," to distract the proletariat from the revolutionary struggle for socialist revolution, which alone can ensure peoples a genuinely democratic peace; in exposing the hypocrisy of social chauvinists and Kautskyites, who in their "peace program" declared themselves for the self-determination of nations while at the same time defending annexations, which represent a "violation of the self-determination of nations," etc. Lenin's new treatment of the colonial question, according to which colonies are "also nations" and "the liberation of colonies is nothing other than the self-determination of nations." The error of "left" Marxists (Dutch and Polish S.D.s), who did not understand the significance of the consistently revolutionary slogan of the right of nations to self-determination, an error which stemmed from "the special conditions of Holland and Poland." This error, as is known, was shared by "left" Bolsheviks (N. Bukharin, G. Pyatakov).

Such are essentially the questions to which Lenin gave answers in his lecture "Conditions of Peace in Connection with the National Question."

This lecture, as its outline shows, was richly illustrated with a number of literary materials relating both to the epoch of the imperialist war and to the pre-war period. In "Materials for the Lecture" we present all the preserved material having relation to this lecture, both in the form of extracts made by Lenin himself and citations from various books, newspapers, and journals to which he referred in his lecture and on which he has made notations. We should note that we have used only those passages from books with Lenin's notations which have direct relation to his lecture "Conditions of Peace in Connection with the National Question."

The three documents of Lenin printed below represent a record of discussions made by him at his lectures on the national question in Zurich (July 9), in Geneva (July 10), and in Bern (July 13), 1913. Evidently, in connection with these lectures, Lenin wrote his "Theses on the National Question" (see Works, vol. XVI, pp. 507–513), by which one can judge the content of the lectures.

Brief recollections of these lectures exist in articles by: A. Zifel'd in No. 24 of *Bakinskii rabochii* (Baku Worker) of February 4, 1924; A. Ilyin-Zhenevskii, "One Day with Lenin (Reminiscences of a Witness)," Giz., 1925, p. 11; and E. Didrikill, "Three Meetings with Ilyich" (*Molodaya gvardiya*, Nos. 2–3, February–March 1924).

The record of discussions was made on small sheets of paper in blue, red, and black pencil.

---

# RECORD OF DISCUSSIONS AT LECTURES ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION
JULY 9–13, 1913

---

# *RECORD OF DISCUSSIONS AT THE LECTURE IN ZURICH*

Wednesday, July 9, 1913. Zurich.

**Objections of Comrade Lipnik.**

Central idea not new: national question is resolved (1) by democratic transformation of the state + (2) general view on the interrelationship of nationality and internationality. 2 questions.

In Switzerland or [is it] realized [the] Austrian program (II). Switzerland [is a] fragmented country, even— (1) civil code (2) Population of cantons [is] homogeneous (3) Switzerland [has a] Vaterland, not nationality.—more. Editor.—less. Editor.—fatherland. Editor.

Combined principle of regions + extraterritorial autonomy, that's the program of the Austrians.

Theory, which allegedly is defended by Kautsky.

*Factual corrections:* according to Bauer, nation is community of character.

This is both so and not so (Lenin did not convey Bauer precisely).

K. Kautsky in a little brochure does not set himself the aim at all to quarrel with Otto Bauer,—he has no other program, only *Bedenken*.* Praises!!

K. Kautsky says that it (cultural-national autonomy) can be realized then, when there will be no need—under socialist order....................

Lenin did not convey quite correctly what cultural-national autonomy consists in. It is based in them on local self-government (Kreisrat):**

One can conduct the matter so that nations and regions coincide............

Organizational question within S.D. party (Bund)....

1 Lipnik)...

Serapists, this is—absurd, because they want to break into the realm of economics. One cannot create regions purely national...

(1) Millions cannot learn another language.... One cannot create barriers.

"I do not wish to advertise Otto Bauer"

(2) National struggle pours national poison (This Lenin overlooked)

"Neutralization of class struggle from national struggle"......

In passing Lenin said about Jews...

K. Kautsky changed his opinions--

Bauer does not agree with K. Kautsky. There is no word "caste"

"Assimilationist ideas met with collapse"....

"Organize nations"—interpretation of Lenin, not a slogan of Bauer....

Petty proletarianism... we fight for democratic order etc., for democratic spirit... We do not set ourselves the special goal of creating and developing culture....

"The whole Austrian International": "we create new concept of internationalism."

Novitskii (Idolsk S.D.) against Program is copied with resolution London Congress

All Jews for cultural-national autonomy All laboring peasants. 1896

---

# *RECORD OF DISCUSSIONS AT THE LECTURE IN GENEVA*

Geneva July 10. 1913.

**Niko:** In Switzerland the matter is not in the constitution, but in the Federal structure. K. Kautsky admits combination of territorial and national autonomy. You will not deprive [anyone] of the right [with] public character.

(What kind of "national culture"? what kind of culture [is] harmful?)

"Nation is social democracy"...

What kind [is this] international culture? Wherever each nation contributes its [own]. "This is what [had] to be proven"

For patriotism the French fought.

"I am not entirely agreed with Bauer" but K. Kautsky [was] somewhat mistaken

**Niko: "Prohibition":**

self-determination = separation. Semkovskii

Self-determination includes both federation and broad autonomy and all possible relationships.

"Some very prominent delegates were against regional"

**II. Mikhalevich:** Enormous theoretical importance. The value of "objectivity" and the lecture and *Prosveshchenie*.

"The Bund together with all bourgeois parties" I assert that all this is untrue.

I. Caucasian regional autonomy---

internationalism in 1906. Lenin played... in 1906.

Against organization of proletariat by nationalities.

III. They are driving out the Jewish nation

shame on those who wrote like that:
Assimilation

---

# *RECORD OF DISCUSSIONS AT THE LECTURE IN BERN*

July 13. 1913.

**Segalevich** "to the maximal sense" self-determination "giving too much [and] giving nothing"...

"experiment" a: separation of Poland = enslavement of Jews

Opas noi//

(Milyukov is far from nationalist!!.)

Merits of S-B.—of general state significance and Kautsky on constitutional point of view.

In Bauer extraterritoriality only a corrective to territorial!!

Once self-determination, then—Jewish autonomy.

Subjectively this would be...

[It] might [be] about medieval Jews and one could say..... Is it not that Orthodox Judaism... Not a misunderstanding!

**Birnbaum:** revival of Jewry can be only on the East.

All signs of national revival are present.

**Zionist Rogovy:** "Exsploitation" of the gentlemen Bolsheviks!! They support national exploitation... On what language will [they] teach in schools!

**Mr. Lenin** dared to assert that Jews [are a] caste!! "You... free-thinking people... that is enough"... shameful.... National death [is] worse [than] physical.

---

# RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION

March 21/April 3, 1914. Krakow.

9. 55

**Kamensky:** Long live independent Poland!

Remark in parenthesis of comrade Kamensky: Material on the national question, what [one] has to talk about in Russian.

Condemned P.P.S.—P.P.S. [was] more logical—and [they] put forward the demand and fought--

Japan—...

(Russian bourgeois revolution with participation of proletariat.)

Lenin slid to the liquidators, because liquidators stand for bourgeois-democratic revolution.

Proletariat cannot set for itself the task of national state, because it is for unification, not for division.

Lenin [is] for the peculiarity of Russia, for Slavophilism...

Autonomy! Rosa Luxemburg [not with] Asiatic despotism, but with republic.

Agrarian program—clear and concrete! Incomparable. Abstract metaphysical phrase__

Tov. En (PPS: In defense of "Natsyuda" (did not wish for a kingdom not Russian (Lenin), but Polish [we]):...

(In this slogan of Poland's independence we do not diverge from Lenin.)

For him—theoretical, for us skinwise__

Questions of national culture [are] wider than class [ones]. We [are] very sorry that P.P.S. [is a] petty bourgeois party.

National culture??

**Lazovskii:**

Kazansky (PPS): Weakness of S.D. movement in Russia etc.—that's the reason for P.P.S.'s special position.

In concrete activity P.P.S. did not depart from the point of view of the proletariat...

—Speaks of Russian revolution as of *quantite negligeable.* From this one must turn away the Polish proletariat...

—I completely agree with him against Rosa Luxemburg...

Decentralism of Russian state—the role of each nation, the degree of their development determines this decentralization]

1) autonomy (national regions not large, but small)?...))) "suburbs of Lodz";

2) cultural-national autonomy i. I am against, but for a declaration of S.D. fraction in the State Duma (for guarantees). (of minorities)...

En: does not believe in papal infallibility......

"Without Poland's independence there can be no talk of Polish socialist movement"...

**Pshybysevskii.** Unclear what internal market requires national state...

(a)? Language, as social, [is] not only economic factor...

(B) Cultural-national autonomy and rights of minorities?

(y) "almost impossible"...

[S.D. will not achieve legal guarantees of this right]

(8) [Is the] task of proletariat negative?? Independence of Poland—the fullest resolution of the question.

(e) [Is it] ABC that PSD—the only socialist party.

**Kamensky.** [Is] independent Poland necessary. To preach this...

Position of good bourgeois radicals? "superfluous"...

Complete unfamiliarity with Polish nationalism. It is not needed by us—(loophole for P.P.S.)—we have our own concrete slogans...

In Poland 1904–5 we already had "Proletariat"

Pan Kulchitskii

"to eradicate"......

[for Jews]?

cultural-national autonomy

[there is] no soil

empty phrase

[what to tell the Russian worker?]

Sweden and Norway:

has Lenin been there?

Against oppression, against militarism!!

**Dombrowski:** Western-European states

Against oppression, this [is] not concrete

"Don Quixotry"__

# [Part 2/3] A record of the discussion made by Lenin on his report in Krakow, March 21, 1914. According to a report by Ch. I. Yasinsky (Przybyshevsky), Lenin's report on the theme: "Russian Social-Democracy and the National Question" took place in the student society "Spuynya" on the initiative of the Krakow section of the SDPiL and the "rozlamovtsi," and together with the discussion lasted several days. On the first day, according to Yasinsky's account, Lenin's speech was devoted to "the general line of development of Russian socialist thought and the formation of Bolshevik ideology." The report consisted of three parts devoted to separate stages in the forging of revolutionary social-democratic ideology and the struggle against Populism, economism, and Menshevism.

"A brief analysis of the economic roots of autocracy and the interrelationships of the principal classes in Russia, exposure of the Populist illusion about the possibility of bypassing the path of capitalist development for Russia, the question of the motive forces and specific character of the Russian bourgeois revolution, the question of the leading role of the proletariat in relation to the petty-bourgeois, and in particular peasant revolutionary movement, and the guiding role of the militant revolutionary workers' party in the struggle for the overthrow of autocracy, the question of the further path of development of the revolution, the necessity of complete exposure of Menshevik opportunism, which serves as a vehicle for the influence of the anti-revolutionary bourgeoisie in the ranks of the proletariat, the necessity to approach the national question from the viewpoint of the revolutionary tasks of the given historical epoch—these were the fundamental, core thoughts-problems of this first part of Lenin's report.

"A concise but carefully developed Marxist treatment of the national question in connection with the development of capitalism in general and the Russian revolution in particular—constituted the content of Lenin's second lecture in our society, which took place on the following or one of the subsequent days.

"The starting point of this part of Lenin's report was the thesis that the Marxist approach to the national question requires first and foremost a concrete account of historical conditions. One must distinguish the epoch of early capitalism and the epoch of mature capitalism. In the first case, on the basis of the formation of an internal market, there arises and predominates a tendency toward the formation of national states, and it is indeed one of the most characteristic features of all bourgeois-democratic revolutions. In the epoch of mature capitalism, the development of productive forces outgrows national frameworks, the share of the external market increases, world exchange deepens ever more the mutual dependence of individual national economies, and the tendency toward the creation of large 'international' states comes to the fore. But these two epochs are, of course, not strictly demarcated from one another and do not occur simultaneously in all countries. The characteristic feature of the present Russian revolution is precisely that it is a product of a transitional period, when Russia has present the factors characteristic of both one and the other epoch: the international antagonism of the proletariat and bourgeoisie comes to the fore, but the unsolved tasks of the democratic revolution and barbarous national oppression inevitably generate elements of national-liberation movements.

"The revolutionary party of the proletariat must take account of these characteristics, striving to direct national-liberation movements into the channel of the general revolutionary struggle against tsarism under the hegemony of the working class. This aim is served by the slogan of national self-determination.

"We, revolutionary social-democrats, strive toward the creation of a single, closely united, centralized party of the proletariat and we set as our political goal a democratic, as large as possible 'international' republic.

"We conceive this republic as a centralized state, with local and regional self-government, with the abolition of old administrative divisions and their adaptation to concrete national-customary conditions, with the abolition of all manner of privileges (including the compulsory state language) and complete equality of all local languages on the model of Switzerland.

"However, such a republic cannot without danger to the entire democratic structure of the state by force retain those regions in which mass national-liberation movements would manifest themselves, i.e., tendencies toward the formation of independent national states. In order to bring nations closer together, one must struggle even against the very idea of suppressing such movements. Thus, with the struggle for a centralized genuinely democratic republic, the slogan of self-determination is inevitably bound up. Practically this means that where, owing to the peculiarities of national way of life and customs, friction caused by the centralization of state structure would impede (even under conditions of formal equality) the actual realization of full democratization, we, revolutionary social-democrats, must stand for the state separation of that territory. For example, after Norway declared its independence, it was the duty of Swedish socialists to support in deed the decision of the Norwegian people and to oppose attempts at forcible incorporation of Norway.

"Such a treatment of the question is a necessary condition for the creation of an international party of the proletariat, the consolidation of all revolutionary forces in the struggle against tsarism, and the genuine drawing-together of nations—now divided by national oppression—on the basis of complete equality. This equality will also radically undermine the utopian and reactionary strivings toward national-cultural autonomy, caused by contemporary isolation and national oppression.

"Thus, in the interests of the class revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, Russian social-democracy will strive to ensure that the future democratic constitution includes not only a law on the equality of nations, but also a law on the right of nations to political self-determination, i.e., the right to separate."

Such in general outline was the content of Lenin's report as presented by Yasinsky, who was present at it.

Since at Lenin's Krakow report there were present, besides Polish social-democrats, also social-patriots from the PPS ("Fractions"), Lenin, apparently for political purposes, carefully avoided direct polemic with the SDPiL and even never once mentioned the errors of Rosa Luxemburg, reports Yasinsky. Moreover, to the extent he recalls, "in the entire report of Lenin on the Polish question, it was not even mentioned separately."

But "precisely because Lenin's report was delivered before a PPS audience, the Polish social-democrats considered it absolutely necessary to defend their point of view on this question," reports comrade V. Kraevsky (Dombrowski).

Kaminsky (G. Stein-Kaminsky, Domsky), a social-democrat "rozlamovets," was the principal opponent on behalf of the Polish social-democrats.

"Since Lenin had to speak in Russian, all the other speakers also spoke in the Russian language," recalls Kraevsky (Dombrowski). "In connection with this, Kaminsky, at the beginning of his statement, sarcastically remarked 'in parentheses' that an illustration, material for the national question, the question of the right to self-determination, is already the fact that speakers have to speak in the Russian language.

"Then Kaminsky said that whoever recognizes the right to self-determination of nations must, with respect to the Polish question, directly accept the slogan: 'Long live an independent Poland,' i.e., take the position of the 'Fractions,' a position not of the proletariat but of the petty bourgeoisie and counter-revolution. Meanwhile, comrade Lenin manages to combine recognition of the right to self-determination of nations up to separation and the formation of an independent state with the struggle against the position of the 'Fractions.' This is illogical. Lenin says that recognition of the right to self-determination up to separation does not mean the struggle for this separation under all conditions. Under determined historical conditions—Lenin says—the struggle for the realization of the right to self-determination can lead into the camp of imperialism. In this case the 'Fractions' are more logical than Lenin, for they have always not only put forward the demand for Polish independence, but have also struggled for it. But precisely because they struggled and continue to struggle for this slogan, they are a party of counter-revolution. Precisely for this reason we, Polish social-democrats, have always condemned them and struggled against them. One is inseparably bound up with the other, and whoever says A must also say B. Whoever struggles for Polish independence is compelled to resort to such means as the 'Fractions' (Pilsudski) resorted to in 1904, during the Russo-Japanese War, when they sent a delegation to Japanese military command with an offer of their services against Russia in exchange for receiving weapons from Japan.

"Comrade Lenin speaks of the need to put forward the slogan of the right to self-determination during the period of bourgeois-democratic revolutions. But this was correct only with respect to Western Europe, with respect to the bourgeois revolution of 1848. But the Russian 'bourgeois' revolution is already not a purely bourgeois one, is already not the old bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1848, for it occurs with the participation of the proletariat and it is its motive force. Without stressing this, Lenin has slid toward the liquidators, for the liquidators stand for the bourgeois-democratic revolution, not understanding the role of the proletariat in our revolution." (Lenin laughed very heartily when Kaminsky came forward with the argument about Lenin the liquidator.)

"Then Kaminsky expressed the view common at that time among Polish social-democrats, that the proletariat cannot set itself the task of building a national state, for it stands for the consolidation of all forces, not their division in the struggle against tsarism and the bourgeoisie. Lenin should be consistent and, if he recognizes the right to self-determination up to separation, he should struggle for the separation of all nations from the Great Russians. But then Lenin slides into Slavophilism, then he stands for Russia's distinctiveness.

"In opposition to Lenin's treatment of the question, Rosa Luxemburg, in substantiating the program, put forward the slogan of autonomy. For us the revolution is not connected with the slogan of the right to self-determination, but precisely with the slogan of autonomy, for autonomy is possible not under Asiatic despotism, but under a republic.

"Due to the special conditions of Poland, Polish social-democracy does not put forward the Bolshevik slogan of nationalization of land. But in any case the agrarian program of the Bolsheviks is clear and concrete. This cannot be said of the program of the RSDLP on the national question. The slogan of the right of nations to self-determination is an abstract, metaphysical phrase. Inasmuch as there are no united nations, but rather class struggle within nations, there cannot be a unified 'self-determination of nations.'"

"Frak" En (Marushevsky) was the principal opponent to Lenin on the part of the PPS. According to Yasinsky's account, Marushevsky took as the starting point of his statement a contrast between the position of Polish socialists as representatives of an oppressed nation and the position of Lenin as a representative of the proletariat of the dominant nation. "For Lenin," he said, "the national question is a theoretical question, for us it is a question of vital interest," "for national oppression weighs heavily on our entire life, distorts all manifestations of that life. For the Polish proletariat the slogan of independence is a necessary condition for any liberation movement of theirs. We have the right to demand from socialists of the dominant nations that they support our aspiration for independence."

"Lazovsky-Lazansky and Przybyshevsky (Yasinsky) were representatives of the 'left' of the PPS," reports Kraevsky. All representatives of the PPS—"each in his own way—seized on Lenin's views in order to attack Polish social-democracy for its lack of understanding of the revolutionary significance of the slogan of Polish independence."

"The main content of Kaminsky's second speech," according to Kraevsky, "was a polemic against the assertion of all three previous speakers that it is necessary to struggle for Polish independence, for the creation of an independent Poland is the most complete and consequently the best solution of the national question even for the proletariat. Kaminsky proved that such a treatment of the question has nothing to do with the class viewpoint, that this is the position of bourgeois radicals, not of the party of the proletariat. The slogan of the right to self-determination—said Kaminsky—we do not need; it leaves a loophole for the PPS, for all open and hidden nationalists. Polish social-democracy has its own concrete slogans on the national question—the slogan of autonomy, corresponding to the interests of the proletariat. If with respect to the Polish nation we speak of the right to self-determination, how can we apply this point to the Jews? Should we accept the Bundist program of national-cultural autonomy?"

"Lenin says that on the national question negative slogans alone—against national oppression—are insufficient; positive ones are needed in order to eradicate nationalism from the Russian worker," recalls Kaminsky. "In that case, he is illogical if he rejects the slogan of national-cultural autonomy, which is the only possible positive slogan on the Jewish question.

"We believe that those positive slogans which in reality are groundless phrases are not needed for agitation among Russian workers. The Russian worker simply needs to be told that the Polish worker, out of solidarity, renounces the slogan of Polish independence. Such a treatment of the question will do far more to eradicate nationalism among Russian workers.

"In Poland we had the party of Kulchitsky 'Proletariat' in 1904-1905, which put forward the slogan of independence precisely as facultatively as Lenin does. It did not become a mass party and faded away: it turned out that the masses understand only a clear and absolute treatment of the question: either for independence or against it."

"Since in his report Lenin cited the example of Sweden and Norway," reports Kraevsky, "Kaminsky returned in his second speech to this point, asking: 'Was Lenin in Sweden and Norway? Did the separation of Norway from Sweden result from the aspirations of revolutionary proletariat? Nothing of the kind. This was a manifestation of ordinary bourgeois separatism, which workers reject. Workers went forward under the slogan: against oppression, against militarism.'"

Dombrowski (Kraevsky), a Polish social-democrat "rozlamovets," presents his speech as follows: "I spoke very briefly, if only because I heard only the last part of the report, whereas all the speakers spoke about the entire cycle of Lenin's lectures. Of course, like Kaminsky, I defended the views of Polish social-democracy, the views of Rosa Luxemburg, against Lenin. I concerned myself, in essence, with only one main point of Lenin's report, namely the question of the connection between the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination and the period of bourgeois-democratic revolutions. I tried to prove that during the period of bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Western Europe, this slogan was appropriate, but it was precisely the slogan of bourgeois radicals, and Marx and Engels supported this slogan only insofar as they had to support bourgeois radicals. But with respect to the Russian revolution, whose motive force is the proletariat, this slogan, drawn from the arsenal of Western European bourgeois radicalism of the past century, is outdated, utopian, and reactionary.

"The proletariat cannot put forward this slogan; the only slogan of the proletariat is the most general one: the struggle against national oppression. As the history of our struggle in Poland demonstrates, this slogan is entirely sufficient for conducting the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat; this slogan is consistently internationalist and excludes any possibility of interpretation in a nationalist spirit. The struggle for the right of nations to self-determination, apart from inevitable nationalist interpretations, is quixotism, a struggle for a metaphysical invention."

"In his answer to us, Lenin of course had no difficulty breaking down all our argumentation," reports Kraevsky. "But he tried to do so with the greatest caution. Emphasizing his solidarity with Polish social-democracy, emphasizing that the principle advanced by Polish social-democracy of joint revolutionary struggle of Polish and Russian proletariat is the highest principle and precisely this principle predetermines the revolutionary international character of Polish social-democracy, Lenin with all his force struck at Polish social-nationalists, pointing out what an abyss lies between the revolutionary treatment of the question of the right to self-determination and all attempts to use this slogan for nationalist, chauvinist agitation among the masses. Lenin proved that the 'Fractions' raise the question not as proletarian revolutionaries but as petty-bourgeois nationalists."

In his answer to Kaminsky (according to Kaminsky-Domsky's account), Lenin pointed out "that the matter is not in this slogan, but in the content which is put into it. The PPS puts petty-bourgeois content into it and strives to separate the struggle of the Polish proletariat from the struggle of the Russian proletariat. The right to independence in no way means for the proletariat the obligation to struggle for independence in all cases. It is bad that the SDPiL does not know how to use the slogan of self-determination, for it, as a genuinely proletarian party, would interpret it in practice not in a nationalist spirit, as the PPS does."

"In replying to Kaminsky's charges," according to Yasinsky, "Lenin said that he is not frightened if they say that his position benefits the nationalism of oppressed national minorities; with no less justification one can assert that the opposite position benefits Russian great-power nationalism and benefits autocracy...

"One would have to be blind not to see that the experience of 1903 proved precisely the opposite. A national-liberation movement, in the form of federalist aspirations, manifested itself in many borderlands. A reflection of this movement was, among other things, the numerous faction of autonomists-federalists in the 2nd Duma. Federalist aspirations are in essence strivings for the creation of one's own statehood.

"National aspirations continue to grow further. Recently the Ukrainian student congress adopted the slogan of 'independent Ukraine.' This does not mean that this slogan is the slogan of the broad laboring masses of Ukraine. But inasmuch as the struggle for 'independence' of Ukraine actually ignites, we, social-democrats, cannot be disturbed by this slogan. The barbarous oppression of tsarism cannot but cultivate national-liberation aspirations among Ukrainians, all the more so in view of the position of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia. Austria is wild, clerical, conservative country, but 'Austria is a paradise compared to Russia.'"

"In view of national oppression, in view of national strife and national hatred, the slogan of self-determination is not an abstract phrase. It is first and foremost a weapon in the struggle against Great Russian nationalism, which for centuries has educated the masses of the people, masses of soldiers in the conviction that lands and peoples conquered by their weapons, by their blood, are their lawful booty, with which they can deal as with their own property, as an object of exploitation. Without a categorical opposition to this ideology of great-power nationalism, there can be no talk either of genuine international solidarity or of the conquest of democracy. The most consistent opposition to this ideology is the slogan of self-determination. And therefore this is for us a practical, vital slogan, from which we cannot renounce under any circumstances whatsoever."

---

# "CONDITIONS OF PEACE" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION

FEBRUARY 1916

The document published below, under the heading "''Conditions of Peace' in Connection with the National Question," is a plan-summary of a report which was delivered by Lenin in Zurich on February 25 and 26, 1916 (see letter No. 78 in Len. sb. XI, p. 206, and the reminiscences of M. Kharitonov in "Records of the Lenin Institute," vol. II, pp. 422-423). In Geneva, Lenin delivered a report on the same theme on March 4, 1916, as is evident from the file of the Department of Police (No. 343, sect. 3, pp. 49-24), in which a brief account of the report is given (see also letter No. 82, p. 2 in Len. sb. XI). Whether this report was also delivered in Lausanne, as was planned (see the same letters), could not be established.

In the archives of the Lenin Institute there are preserved three leaves of manuscript of notebook size, the pages of which are numbered by Lenin in pencil: 1-6. On the first page there is a note from an article by Kautsky in "Neue Zeit" of November 27, 1914 (see below, section I of "Materials for the Report," p. 255); the second is blank; on the third is a note "'Marx on Lopatin'" (section XVIII, p. 290); on the fourth is a note "'Kautsky on Peace'" (section VII, pp. 264 and 266); on the fifth is "'Summary of Article by L. Martov'" (p. 240). The plan-summary of the report is written on the reverse of the fifth page of this manuscript. The leaf of manuscript with the record of Martov's article summary and the plan-summary of the report has folds lengthwise and crosswise. To the right of the plan-summary there is a preliminary outline of the plan (b), written in pencil (some words circled in ink), crossed out. To the left is the same plan in reworked form (a), written in ink. In several cases the paragraph numbering of the plan written out fairly is corrected in colored pencil. Additions and notations written in colored pencil indicate places where all of them are noted in the footnotes.

The summary-analysis of Martov's article in nos. 47 and 48 of "Nasha Golos" (c) is written in ink.

II.

"CONDITIONS OF PEACE" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION.

*FINAL TEXT OF THE PLAN-SUMMARY.

I:

1. "Peace" = current and popular slogan. (Priests, bourgeoisie, governments...) 

2. "Peace" as a manifestation of unconscious protest.

3. Charles Kautsky. "Struggle for peace," "program of peace"... "All agree." Hypocrisy. KK |1|

4. Gorter on peace. Correct! Gorter 457-9; 441. ("Friedensheuchelei")*

*—"hypocritical striving for peace." Ed.

5. Guésmans. Already a program of peace:

(1) Self-determination of nations.
(2) Democratization of foreign policy.
(3) Strengthening of parliamentary control.
(4) Arbitration courts.

II section
(5) Against annexations.
(6) United States of Europe.

6. "Hypocrisy" (N.R.V. in Berner Tagwacht, new article).

7. Brailsford. III. 1914 book and his pamphlet, Union of Democratic Control.

8. "Lullaby," lulling to sleep the proletariat.

9. "United States of Europe" (and Trotsky's "trusts").

10. Sum = deception of the working class. (All chauvinists of socialism for... (Citation from Kautsky 21. U. 1915)).

| p. 1 beginning |*

II:

11. "Self-determination of nations"

a) chauvinists (Fabians, Austerlitz, Parvus, Lensch, Semkovsky, Liebman, Yurkevich).

b) Kautskyans.
| p. 4 |*
c) left = Marxists...

12. Martov and "Rabochee Utro" (Self-defense vs. Engels 1866 |*

13. Resolutions of 1913 of our party (articles in Prosveshchenie and in "Sotsial Demokrat").

14. Petty-bourgeois utopias of "equal nations" and the reality of imperialism: oppressing and oppressed nations.

15. "Feel the tooth" Marx versus Lopatin.

16. Marx on Ireland. 1869 (cf. Marx 1848 on Germany).

17. Russian Kadets in polemic with "Pravda." "Did not undertake to defend the right of separation from Russia"....

18. Separation or emancipation for union?

19. Zimmerwald declaration R.S.D. "It is not what they say that they think."

20. Gorter and self-determination versus "colonial program"...

21. Misfortune to be born in small states.

22. Colonies and Rosa Luxemburg (I am I...).

23. "National-cultural autonomy." Its reactionary nature.

24. Drawing together and merging of nations.

NB: 25. SS.** "Program of peace" = struggle with the deception of workers by means of phrases about peace.

26. On the national question, the preparation of peoples by propaganda of internationalism, but not doctrinaire, but living. III.

Martov "attacked" Pannekoek (+Gorter), bypassing the main thing = Kauntsky's hypocrisy.

NB: Engels' letter 1882 on colonies.

B.

"CONDITIONS OF PEACE" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION

*PRELIMINARY OUTLINE OF THE PLAN-SUMMARY.

Brailsford (compare Karl Kautsky) and Union of Democratic Control.

"United States of Europe" and Trotsky.

"Self-determination of nations" Guésmans with + Self-defense.

Self-determination of nations and R.S.D. (+Gorter, Pannekoek).

Semkovsky and the divorce (Semkovsky + Liebman + Yurkevich).

Parvus + Lensch + Austerlitz + ... etc. etc.

"Polish independents" (Rabochee Utro).

Struggle with nationalism. Drawing together and merging of nations.

National-cultural autonomy.

"Liberation of oppressed nations."

Reference to... oppression.

What is annexation?

The merits of R.S.D. and the Dutch.

Misfortune to be born in a small country.

Sweden and Norway (compare Rosa Luxemburg).

Imperialism and the drawing together of nations in the assessment of the bourgeoisie.

Zimmerwald declaration R.S.D. "It is not what they say that they think."

Russian Kadets and "freedom of separation from Russia."

Peace as a state of mind (Cannon fire)—as an approach, an awakening.

A) "Peace" (as the most current and popular slogan). (Governments, bourgeoisie, priests.)

B) K. Kautsky and Guésmans. "All agree"... Deception. Hypocrisy.

(1[5]) "Self-determination of nations" ((4 points of Guésmans)) + United States of Europe. —2) Democratization of foreign policy. —3) Strengthening of parliamentary control. —4) "Arbitration courts." —5[1]) Against annexations.)

C) Gorter on peace (compare Zimmerwald Left Internationale Flugblatter No. 1).

D) Self-determination. Positing of the question. Oppressing and oppressed.

E) Rosa Luxemburg and Gorter.

F) "Feel the tooth."

G) "Rabochee Utro" and Martov.

H) "National-cultural autonomy."

I) Self-determination as separation and as emancipation.

J) "Self-defense" and its reference to self-determination versus Engels 1866: "Russia plundered."

K) Rosa Luxemburg and Berne-Fichte ("I am I, whatever is outside me is nourishment for life".).*

millions
peoples
great-power
middle and small
1,100
oppressed
1,050 52

C.

SUMMARY-ANALYSIS OF L. MARTOV'S ARTICLE "WHAT FOLLOWS FROM THE RIGHT TO NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION."

Martov in nos. 17 and 18 of "Nasha Golos"

In § I—imperialism is the oppression of nations. Correct.

Further: "financial capital has stopped the process of formation of national states."

NB Incorrect! Colonies. Asia. Balkans. Compare Hilferding.

In § II. He attacked Pannekoek and Gorter on their error in argumentation.

a) And was silent about Kautsky, on his not just error but hypocrisy, falsehood, prostitution of Marxism.

(Compare the Zimmerwald left and Vorbote.)

b) "we are not obligated" to support separations always (Armenian question).

Falsehood! Bypassed the main thing: freedom of separation.

= Kautsky. "Zu viel verlangt."*

In § III. From the right to self-determination one cannot derive participation in defense.

(error here is the denial of national wars).

*—"Excessive demand." Ed.

See the article "Results of the Discussion on Self-Determination" (Lenin's Works, vol. XIX, pp. 247-251).

9 Obviously referring to points 5 and 6.

10 This refers to an article by Henrietta Roland-Holst "Huysmans Rede auf dem Parteitag der S.D.A.P." ("Huymans' Speech at the Congress of the Social Democratic Workers' Party") (see "Materials for the Report," section III, p. 258).

Roland-Holst was a Dutch socialist. During the war years she initially held a position close to Trotsky's (Lenin, according to Radek, called her "Trotsky in a skirt"). In a letter to A. Kollontai in the summer of 1915 (Lenin Miscellany II, p. 235), Lenin wrote: "Roland-Holst, like Rakovsky (did you see his French pamphlet?!), like Trotsky, in my opinion, are all the most harmful 'Kautskyites' in the sense that they all, in various forms, are for unity with opportunists, all in various forms *conceal* opportunism, all conduct (in different ways) eclecticism instead of revolutionary Marxism." Later R.-H. took up a more consistent internationalist position and at the Zimmerwalde Conference sided with its "left" wing.

11 By "new article" Lenin obviously means the article by Henrietta Roland-Holst "Die nationalistische Kampagne Huysmans in Holland" ("The Nationalist Campaign of Huymans in Holland") in no. 43.